The Times Online published a story a couple of days ago with the headline “Al Gore likens fight against climate change to battle with Nazis”. I guess that didn’t sit very well with some readers, because the Times Online changed it to read “Al Gore invokes spirit of Churchill in battle against climate change”

Here’s a couple screens shots. the first one is of the original headline

Original Headline

The second screen shot is of the new headline while showing the page source code. If you enlarge the photo you can see in the code that they named the video “Al Gore likens fight against climate change to battle with Nazis”

Click To Enlarge

Gore was Speaking in Oxford at the Smith School World Forum on Enterprise and the Environment, sponsored by The Times.

He said future generations would put one of two questions to today’s adults.

“It will either be ‘What were you thinking, didn’t you see the North Pole melting before your eyes, didn’t you hear what the scientists were saying?’.

Or they will ask

‘How is it you were able to find the moral courage to solve the crisis which so many said couldn’t be solved?’”

Al Gore, self appointed expert on global warming has been purchasing carbon credits in an effort to offset his palatial lifestyle. What he didn’t tell us, however, is that the company he is buying the credits from is actually owned by him. Ching, ching … more

Another interesting point is David Blood, who brings to the table significant experience in traditional investing as former CEO of Goldman Sachs Asset Management.

Generation has made a legally binding commitment to measure and report its annual business-related emissions. They are legally required to purchase Carbon Financial Instruments (CFIs) sufficient to offset all emissions from electricity use, commuting, and business travel on an annual basis. Our compliance is audited and reviewed annually by regulators from the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA). …. link

If you have never heard about the Chicago Climate Exchange, it’s the model for a stock market, but for “green” industry. Where company’s can buy and trade carbon credits. If you check out their home page you can read all about tradable Carbon Financial Instruments. My opinion is this will be the next “bubble” for our economy. Which is why Obama and the congress are pushing so hard to push their cap and trade bill.

Guess who would oversee the carbon offsets, the Chicago Climate Exchange. Guess who helped fund them, Obama. And Guess who’s an Associate Member of the Chicago Climate Exchange, Generation Investment Management.

We’re suppose to believe these are the environmental patriots? So the guys who stand to make the most money off of green technology happen to be the guys going around the world convincing us if we don’t change our grand-kids will be living on a beach in Kansas because we let the north pole melt.

I know this list isn’t as fun or sexy as say Maxim’s 100 Hottest Females, or as entertaining as breaking news about Brittany Spears.

I am well aware that not nearly enough people will ever read these reports, and most people will spend less then 8 seconds on this post.

But these reports and documents have and will affect us for years to come. They are put together by Washington think tanks, which have a heavy hand in foreign policy, national security, and technology.

These reports will affect national policy and legislation in the coming years.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

2025 Global Trends Report

Global Trends 2025

A report put out by the National Intelligence Council (NIC) . The NIC is a center of strategic thinking within the US Government, providing the President and senior policymakers with analyses of foreign policy issues that have been reviewed and coordinated throughout the Intelligence Community.

The report is a little long so heres some of the gems inside.

The international system—as constructed following the Second World War—will be almost unrecognizable by 2025 owing to the rise of emerging powers, a globalizing economy, an historic transfer of relative wealth and economic power from West to East

the relative power of various nonstate actors—including businesses, tribes, religious organizations, and criminal networks—is increasing.

but we cannot rule out a 19th century-like scenario of arms races, territorial expansion, and military rivalries.

The World Bank estimates that demand for food will rise by 50 percent by 2030, as a result of growing world population, rising affluence, and the shift to Western dietary preferences by a larger middle class.

One of our greatest concerns continues to be that terrorist or other malevolent groups might acquire and employ biological agents, or less likely, a nuclear device, to create mass casualties.

Types of conflict we have not seen for awhile—such as over resources—could reemerge.
Perceptions of energy scarcity will drive countries to take actions to assure their future access to energy supplies.

The US will continue to be expected to play a significant role in using its military power to
counter global terrorism.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

World At Risk

World at Risk

This Congressional-mandated report was written by the Commission on the Prevention of WMD Proliferation and Terrorism. They were “given a charter to assess, within 180 days, any and all of the nation’s activities, initiatives, and programs to prevent weapons of mass destruction proliferation and terrorism. They were also asked to provide concrete recommendations to address these threats.”

The reported believes

A biological or nuclear attack is likely to occur somewhere around the globe during the Obama administration or shortly thereafter

One of the more real warnings was their statement about Pakistan, especially after the mumbai attacks.

Were one to map terrorism and weapons of mass destruction today, all roads would intersect in Pakistan.

Based on the recommendation by the committee, I think we will see Obama create a new position. A sort of WMD Czar if you will.

The President should create a more efficient and effective policy coordination structure by designating a White House principal advisor for WMD proliferation and terrorism and restructuring the National Security Council and Homeland Security Council.

Another trend that will get bigger is disease surveillance. Check out Healthmap.org

It all comes down to the fact that we are moving from global terrorism to Nuclear terrorism. I’ve already noticed the trend in the media from CNN.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

U.S. Senate Minority Report

U. S. Senate Minority Report:

More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims Scientists Continue to Debunk “Consensus” in 2008

POZNAN, Poland – The UN global warming conference in Poland faced a serious challenge from over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe who are criticizing the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore. A newly updated U.S. Senate Minority Report features the dissenting voices of over 650 international scientists, many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN. The report has added about 250 scientists (and growing) in 2008 to the over 400 scientists who spoke out in 2007. The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.

The U.S. Senate report is the latest evidence of the growing groundswell of scientific opposition rising to challenge the UN and Gore. Scientific meetings are now being dominated by a growing number of skeptical scientists. The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists’ equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices and views of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears.

If you 650 Scientist is a lot what about the 31,000 American scientist that have signed a petition to deny man made global warming.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Securing Cyber Space For The 44th Presidentt

Securing Cyber Space

A Congressional sponsored study conducted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, made public on Monday, recommends everything from the creation of a the National Office for Cyberspace outside the authority of the Department of Homeland Security to maintaining “sufficient manufacturing capabilities” at home to supply components and software that is not dependent on a global supply chain.

The report also states that when it comes to regulating cyberspace, “voluntary action is not enough,” and calls on the U.S. — it did not identify what entity in the U.S. — to assess and prioritize risks in order to set minimum cyberspace security standards.

The Obama administration will probably appoint a cyberspace czar, all they need is a trigger to warrant the action.

Economic Stabilization Act of 2008

There is no way around it, This was the most important economic event of my life. And the action taken by the Fed was historic. Unforntuanly in the end I don’t think it’s helped everyday america at all. It just a transfer of wealth and consoladation of banks. Despite congress passing the bill the second time around. There are some people in Washington who can smell a rat a mile away.

Ohio Democratic U.S. Representative Dennis Kucinich, a former two-time presidential candidate, delivered a speech on the House floor denouncing the bailout as “too much money, in too short of a time, going to too few people, while too many questions remain unanswered,” and asking, “Is this the U.S. Congress or the board of directors at Goldman Sachs?”

The Treasury Department on Wednesday officially abandoned the original strategy behind its $700 billion effort to rescue the financial system, as administration officials acknowledged that banks and financial institutions were as unwilling as ever to lend to consumers.

Section 115 of the Bill doesn’t state that the limit is $700 Billion, it says the maximum that can be out at any one time is $700 Billion. It’s not exactly closed print.

Whats worse is that the bill passed the second time only after a $150 billion worth of pork was added. My own congressman Pat Tiberi voted no the first time, only to turn around and vote yes to pork.

From the December issue of INC. Magazine, there was an interesting article about “Going Carbon Neutral”.The first line sums up the marketing of going carbon neutral.

“If it were cheap and easy, would you reduce your carbon emissions to zero?”

The whole article is a propaganda piece for carbon “offset” providers. They want you to hire them, so they can estimate how much carbon you offset a year, charge you a small fee. Enough to make you feel like your helping the planet, but not enough to make you feel like your getting robbed.

Most carbon providers take your money and fund some kind of green technology such as solar or wind power. They say it encourages people to reduce the amount of energy they use. I simply don’t think that will work.

2 different issues

But we are dealing with 2 different issues. Individuals who want to reduce their carbon foot print can easily do it without buying carbon credits.

Start recycling, unplug appliance that aren’t in use. reduce how much you consume, take your coffee mug to Startbucks instead of using a paper cup. Make your home more energy efficient.

Big corporations on the other hand would much rather just pay the fee. That way they have a scapegoat for why they haven’t changed their business practices. “Well we are carbon neutral because we buy carbon credits from so and so.”

But it goes against common sense!

If you take 100 flights overseas every year, but buy carbon credits to off set it, your still taking 100 flights a year. You didn’t reduce, reuse or recycle your way to carbon neutral. You took the easy way out.

And that’s what these carbon providers are hoping for. That there are millions of people who will pay to relieve their guilt.

Carbonfund.org even suggest you buy carbon offsets for your friends and family for the holidays and give them the gift of a better future! They reinforce their belief with their slogan:

Reduce what you can, offset what you can’t

Or Terrapass has a whole gift section of green gadgets that will help save the world. I wonder if you order a gift and they ship it to you, if they pay for the carbon offset to ship it too?

It’s so great lets make it mandatory

These companies are lobbying congress and Washington to make carbon credits mandatory. you own a car, now you owe a carbon tax. You want to buy a new washer and dryer, better stick a carbon tax on top of the sticker price to offset the carbon.

You have an older home, oops sorry that’s not as efficient as newer homes, your going to have to make up the difference in carbon offsets.

I’m not against people reducing, reusing, and recycling,we all should be. People should examine their lifestyles and make some changes. We have lived without consequences for too long, and we need to replace our short term outlook with a long term vision.

What I am against is corporations making huge profits off of selling snake oil, by duping their customers with slick presentations, psychological babble about how they are saving the earth and providing a future for their grand kids.

Carbon Credits the new indulgence

Buying carbon credits is the same thing as the Catholic Church selling Indulgence’s in the 1500’s. You sin, no problem you just need to buy this little indulgence to limit the consequence of your sin. It didn’t change the fact that you sinned, it didn’t even promise to forgive you, only Jesus could do that. The indulgence was strictly to avoid punishment for your sins.

Say like owning a factor and polluting local rivers for the last 40 years. Or shipping tons of toxic toys across the world. Our letting 5% of the worlds population consume 40% of the worlds resources.

“Oh we shouldn’t do that, well we’re carbon neutral”

It’s a crock. These company’s are profiting off of a think tank’s idea that global warming is man made and killing the earth. Just read the Club of Romes report “The first Global Revolution“, page 75

Of course you didn’t, that’s the point. They don’t want the public to know that military’s and government’s all over the world are experimenting with our weather.

That fact that there is a treaty proves that they had to pass laws to regulate people. After all you don’t pass laws for things that don’t exist!

This is taken from Article 1 of the treaty

Article I1. Each State Party to this Convention undertakes not to engage in military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects as the means of destruction, damage or injury to any other State Party.

This is taken from Article 2 of the treaty

It is the understanding of the Committee that the following examples are illustrative of phenomena that could be caused by the use of environmental modification techniques as defined in Article II of the Convention: earthquakes, tsunamis; an upset in the ecological balance of a region; changes in weather patterns (clouds, precipitation, cyclones of various types and tornadic storms); changes in climate patterns; changes in ocean currents; changes in the state of the ozone layer; and changes in the state of the ionosphere.

Just look at the historical weather we have had in the last couple of years. Katrina, the California wildfires, an earthquake in Indiana!, the flooding in the Iowa and the Midwest.

Then you have china who comes out and says they are going tomodify the weather for the opening of the Olympic games so it doesn’t’ rain! and that they had made the first artificial snow.

I almost have this belief that they are modifying our weather to try and convince us that all these natural disasters are the result of global warming. And if we decide to let the government “save” us from it, by passing global warming laws and carbon credits, they will stop the weather experiments.

They create the problem, they offer the solution, they look like our saviors!

And the whole time they are bringing the country to it’s knees by destroying cities, crops, and our economy.

One Expert says we can NOT save the Polar Bear by making significant lifestyle changes in order to reduce co2 output.

The Interior Department listed the polar on its threatened species list because of the risks of shrinking sea ice. But Bjørn Lomborg, a Danish author and professor at the Copenhagen Business School, told the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on June 25 that the threat is exaggerated and wouldn’t go away even if every country in the world signed and followed the Kyoto Protocol.

Lomborg, author of “Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming,” explained during the speech in Washington, D.C., how inefficient and ineffective it would be to try to improve the polar bear population via massively curbing greenhouse gas emissions.

“The polar bear has become the icon of global warming and certainly [former Vice President] Al Gore was a part of doing that,” Lomborg said. “A lot of people think polar bears are threatened right now – actually that’s not the case.”

According to Lomborg, global polar bear population was about 5,000 in 1960. Since then, the population has quadrupled. Now there are an estimated 22,000 polar bears. But, Lomborg warned the polar bear still eventually could be threatened by the effects of global warming.

“My point is simply: if we actually care about the polar bear, why is that we are so intent on only discussing one option – that is cutting carbon emissions?” Lomborg said. “Nobody ever talks about what would be the effect of cutting carbon emissions. Well, let me show you – if everybody did the Kyoto Protocol all the way through the century, which is very, very far away, but if everybody actually did that, we’d save one polar bear every year.”

Lomborg said he was all for saving that one polar bear a year, but questioned the costs. He estimated the worldwide annual cost of the Kyoto Protocol to be $180 billion. Kyoto is a treaty supported by Gorethe United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. He proposed a simpler solution: and

“It strikes me as odd, that in this conversation, nobody seems to mention the fact that every year, we shoot somewhere between 300 and 500 polar bear,” Lomborg said. “Wouldn’t it be smarter to first stop shooting the polar bear?”

“The real goal of the Earth Charter is that it will in fact become like the Ten Commandments.”
— Maurice Strong

If you have never heard of the Earth Charter (Click Here to Download) your not the only one. But there is a global push from the United Nations to give the earth charter the same authority as the 10 commandment. Actually even more, since most contributors to the earth charter see the 10 commandments as outdated. I guess they figure that God isn’t relevant anymore.

It’s part of the whole plan to lead Christians into the new age movement by providing a segue that’s easy to digest. The Earth Charter, consisting of 16 principles, has its roots in the values of the Transformational Movement it’s a paradigm shift from individualism, self-interest and separatiterveness, to unity, wholeness and community.

Sounds spiritual right?

That’s why it’s so easy to be manipulated into this new age pagan religion. They sound good on the surface, but it’s laying the ground work to regulate everything we do. Where we can live, what products we can buy, how we have to act, even if we can reproduce.

Go read their website, it’s super spiritual which is why I guess so many people think it’s not a threat. The Earth Charter and the Extreme environmental movement is all about population control!